good afternoon from msnbc headquarters. i'm katy tur. we'll continue our coverage of that breaking news of the gop memo release. a short time ago president trump approved the release of the nunes memo which was compiled by republicans on the house intelligence committee because he says it shows people in the doj and fbi should be ashamed of themselves. >> i think it's a disgrace what's going on in this country. it's a disgrace. the memo was sent to congress. it was declassified. congress will do whatever they're going to do, but i think it's a disgrace what's happening in our country. when you look at that and see that and so many other things, what's going on, a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves. >> among the allegations, the steele dossier formed an essential part against carter page. the dossier was compiled by christopher steele on behalf of the dnc and the clinton

campaign. and steele had said he was dr s desperate not to see donald trump elected. one paragraph to note. then director james comey signed three fisa applications in question on behalf of the fbi and deputy director andrew mccabe signed one. then dag, deputy attorney general and dana boente and rod rosenstein each signed one of more fisa applications on behalf of the doj. again it is important to note this memo was compiled by republicans on the intelligence committee in the house and democrats objected to it being released because they say it was cherry-picked and misleading. same goes for the fbi which said it had grave concerns about material omissions in the memo. the questions right now, of course, is it the bombshell the gop said it would be? does the fbi respond? what does director christopher ray do and does this give the president's justification, any

justification at all he needs to fire deputy ag rod rosenstein, the man overseeing the mueller probe? nbc news justice correspondent pete williams, mike memely and kristen welker are with us. the pertinent points in the memo that stood out to you? >> it's pretty much what we expected because this has been leaked out in the weeks so there were no big surprises. the thesis of the memo is the applications to get a warrant from this secret court to monitor the communications of carter page were infected, they say, fatically, by the inclusion of information from christopher steele and that the fisa court should have been told that some of steele's work was under written, paid for by the hillary clinton campaign. that he had strong feelings against president trump and the failure to do that, they say, undercuts the entire justification for getting the warrants.

and they say that the deputy director andrew mccabe, then the deputy director of the fbi, told the committee in a closed hearing in december that no warrant would have been obtained or would have been sought from the court without the information from the steele dossier. now in terms of what the fbi does, it seemed pretty clear yesterday that the plan was not to say anything. my guess is that they are rethinking that. maybe they'll say something in response. maybe they won't. but there's been -- i just want to address something that's been out there in the ether for quite a while and quite loudly in the last 24 hours. the question of whether christopher ray is going to step down over this. i am repeatedly told by people at the fbi and the justice department that he has no intention of stepping down over the decision to release this materi material. >> this is the president of the united states defying, going against the advice of the man

that he chose to lead the fbi. is there some frustration there? they were worried about hurting an already strained relationship that they had with the intelligence community and already strained relationship with the fbi? >> well, this doesn't -- this doesn't happen on a blank slate. you have to remember the president has been attacking his own attorney general. he fired jim comey. so compared to the firing of comey, this is sort of a minor hit at the fbi by the white house. they've been through a lot. doesn't help the relationship any. but it's further down a road, of course, that they don't want to see get any worse. but i don't think it fundamentally changes the relationship here. it's another step along the way. it's a big one. and we can all see it coming. but relationships were already

pretty strained. now the president did try to get them righted again by appointing christopher wray and wray has been supportive of the attorney general who has been supportive of him. so we'll see how this goes. but it's just an -- i guess you can call it it's not the huge earthquake. it's an aftershock. >> mike, who is the intended target of this memo? i've been talking to a number of members of the republican party in the house the past few days. i've had them on the show and asked them about this memo. and i've been told repeatedly this memo will show there needs to be a change in leadership at the very top. in the excerpt i just read a moment ago talking about who signed the fisa warrants, james comey is listed. james comey has already been fired. deputy director andrew mccabe is listed. he's already resigned, retired, or is about to retire. dag sally yates was fired.

acting yates dana boente is not there any longer in that role. and rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general right now. a man that donald trump has said to refer to as the democrat from baltimore, even though he is a republican, a man that donald trump appointed to that role. most importantly, though, a man that donald trump is not happy with because he is overseeing, this is according to reporting, overseeing the russia investigation. is it clear that this is intended to try and cut down rod rosenstein? >> it's interesting because in devin nunes' own statement in -- accompanying the release of this memo today, he says this whole process is an important part of making reforms to the fisa process. as you and i discussed yesterday, the house just approved and the president has since signed a reauthorization of the fisa program. it did make some changes but if this was such an important issue, if the pretext on the -- if nunes is saying this is an

important part of making reforms to the fisa process, it probably should have been released earlier smp have been put before members before they voted on the fisa renewal and perhaps and maybe we'll hear there were changes made addressing some of these concerns. in my reading of this memo so far, rosenstein is mentioned but it's not clear to me what would be a smoking gun that would be cause for firing him. it's mentioned that rosenstein was one of several officials at the fbi, at doj who would have signed renewals or -- of fisa applications but it's not clear that he specifically signed one on carter page. he's one of six officials that's mentioned there. i've been speaking with a number of sources on the hill over the course of the week. and one person on the democratic side was telling me yesterday that the prospect of rosenstein being the intended target here is very concerned because -- as we ultimately know, mueller reports to rosenstein. and rosenstein or whoever would replace them can help to find the scope, the funding, the

resources available to mueller. if he is gone, that opens up the possibility that somebody else could come into his place and really cut off mueller's resources. and that's a very significant concern, an increasing concern to democrats. >> but that person would need senate confirmation, right? >> he is a senate-confirmed position but the retsically someone who steps in in an acting capacity who is already there that would have to supervise the investigation in the meantime. as far as the partisan breakdown, we're hearing a lot from democrats today raising concerns about this whole process and warning about what they see as really an attempt to undermine the fbi. i want to read from a statement from john mccain. we haven't heard from him a lot lately. he put out a statement and didn't address the specific points in any of them made in the memo. but the latest attacks on the fbi, he's including this among them, i assume, and the department of justice serve no american interests. no parties, no presidents, only putin's. so his point, which is this

entire process, all it is doing is distracting and this is something we hear from democrats all the time that all the energy and research being put into this process right now could be spent in an oversight capacity on the part of the intelligence committee and throughout the other congressional committees as well on getting to the bottom of what russia did in our elections in 2016 and what they might be doing at this very moment to attempt to interfere in our midterm elections this fall. >> let's just remind everybody once again because it's always worth reminding. the intelligence community has concluded that russia meddled into the 2016 election. that they will continue to do so. and as of now, very little has been done to stop that from happening again, to protect the sovereignty of our elections. remember, that is where this all started. kristen, back to the memo and whether or not donald trump wanted it released before he read it. "the washington post" is out with a story today that has quite detailed sourcing.

and it talks about donald trump's interest in this memo. he spent two weeks talking to friends and advisers about it. before he had even read it trump became absolutely convinced of one thing. the memo needed to come out. he said as much 100% the other day when he was walking out of the state of the union to a republican congressman. that was before i understand it he read that memo as well. he was listening to a number of members of congress talk about how concerned they are in what they read. it's not just a couple of us said mark meadows, one of the house conservatives who spoke with trump on the january 8th call. donald trump, why does he want this out there, kristen, from what you can tell? >> first of all, to your point, it has seemed like a foregone conclusion. he was leaving his state of the union address on tuesday before he had seen the memo. and that's when he was asked by a republican lawmaker if he planned to release it and that's when he said 100%.

so again, that was before he actually saw the memo. all signs point to the fact that he'll use this information to try to undermine or delegitimize the russia probe to essentially put some meat on the argument he's been trying to make for some time. he's called it a hoax. now he has one point which democrats say is cherry picked and which is merely for the purpose of brainwashing people. but undoubtedly, he'll use this information to try to back up some of his assertions. in terms of the fallout, you have adam schiff, the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee who said last night that this could potentially be leading to a constitutional crisis if the president does try to replace rod rosenstein. there's no indication yet the wheels are in motion for that type of a move. something that would be so significant, but it is worth pointing out in the oval office spray today, my colleague peter alexander was there, president trump was asked, does he have

confidence in rod rosenstein? his response, you figure that one out. so this is where this story line goes. what is the future of rosenstein? what is the future of this president and his relationship with the fbi and his own law enforcement in the wake of this memo which has now been released? >> and let's remind everyone again, on my air yesterday at 2:00 p.m., they setd this memo will so there needs to be leadership changes within the fbi and the doj. a lot of the names in this memo are not there any longer. but rod rosenstein is one who is still there and again, rod rosenstein is the man who is leading or overseeing the russia investigation. this other quote from "the washington post" report today. the president said he thought that the release of the memo would help build a public argument against rosenstein's handling of the case, according to people familiar with the discussions. trump suggested to aides and confidantes that the memo might give him the justification to fire rosenstein. something about which trump has privately mused her make other

changes at the justice department which he had complained was not sufficiently loyal to him. kristen welker, mike, pete williams, thank you. we appreciate your time. joining me now are ari melber and ned price, an msnbc national security annualist who has worked for the cia and as a spokesman for the national security council in the obama administration. and matt miller, an msnbc justice and security analyst who served as a justice department spokesman and retired fbi special agent bobby chacon. welcome. ari, let's start with you. this memo is dealing with a fisa warrant targeting carter page. remind us again, who is carter page? >> carter page is a foreign policy adviser who worked for the trump campaign. he's made many trips to russia and has links to russia. and he has figured into the mueller probe by all accounts as a periphery figure.

not someone who is super important. looking at this memo, one thing that jumps out to me as we look at the footage of carter page when he came out and had spoken to the congressional investigators, this memo with regards to the mueller probe is a dud. and let me just repeat that having read it and covered the story for a while. as to the mueller probe, this memo is a dud. it doesn't say anything or even reference any evidence that calls into question the wider mueller probe. the entire memo makes an argument without the underlying evidence which may be a good thing because of the rules but makes the argument that the independent judges, 80% of them are republican on the fisa court, who approved the surveillance of carter page in october 2016 and reauthorizationed, shouldn't have done so. they shouldn't have approved the warrant. that may be a true opinion. it may not be the right opinion. either way, it doesn't do what you and your panel were just

reporting on for 15 minutes. it doesn't do anything with regard to the wider mueller probe. what it -- >> it could be used in the court of public opinion right now to bolster donald trump supporters and believers to say that there is bias within the fbi. ultimately, if this is not a legal case, if this is not showing anything to people who are reading it with an eagle eye or those who are looking at it with some sense of skepticism. those who say donald trump should have the authority to fire rosenstein. >> you are right 100% about the underlying political agenda. but i give trump supporters a lot more credit. i've covered them as you have. i've been at the rallies with them. it's not news to trump supporters that there are some people in washington and america who didn't vote for donald trump. unless you were on the full conspiracy train, we have a system where more voters vote forward someone else. he won the electoral college. that's not news. what this is is a legal argument. the warrant shouldn't have been

issued and maybe if the fisa judge had more information they would have come down a different way. there already is under the law which republicans passed, by the way, and renewed in the fisa law, a remedy for that. carter page wants that remedy and he's entitled to that. none of that matters to many more people than carter page. we cover civil liberties cases all the time. if he ultimately wins this case through the fisa process, i'll cover that too and congratulate him. does this is a anything about the wider case, the mueller probe, the collusion under investigation and the meddling that's been proven? my reading of this memo is no. and as a journalist, it's disappointing because whatever the process is we got here, i prefer really big revealing documents to really narrow duds. this looks like a dud. >> i was talking to a producer meredith mandel. she was telling me the idea that the steele dossier is a smoking gun to say that this investigation should not be followed through is a little

ludicrous if you're looking at it from a legal standpoint if you were a judge looking at the case. if your neighbor says i went to a cop and said i believe this person, katy tur, is making meth in her house and the cops follow through and investigate and find, lo and behold, i am making meths in my house, i cannot go to a judge and say, you cannot use that evidence because my neighbor clearly does not like me. doesn't want to see me succeed. doesn't think i should be making money. that would not hold in a court of law. >> that's exactly right. this is something the legal unit has been researching. the meth case is a real one and the answer was the judge looks at whether the underlying facts provide the kind of suspicion to justify a warrant which means they gather more facts. it doesn't mean anyone is guilty. the fact that someone may have a reason to turn or snitch or complain doesn't undermine the issue. the issue is only whether the

facts are real. and so that goes to the question of carter page's concern. he says what if this was all based only on the dossier and what if the dossier is seen to be something that was just by people biased against page or trump? does that change whether or not you get a warrant? the short answer is no. the court looks at whether the information is valid. >> credible. >> now we're down the rabbit hole. but let me just get in the rabbit hole. that is carter page's bigger problem down in the center and the core of that rabbit hole is not just a dossier. down in the rabbit hole is also multiple trips to russia and meetings with high level russian officials and a previous case before donald trump ever ran for office where the fbi was looking at page as quote/unquote male one in documents which we do have that say he was seen as potentially an unwitting asset of russian intelligence. there's a lot inside the rabbit hole other than the dossier. even if the dossier had democratic funding the judge's

job is to say, is it true? >> let's stay in the rabbit hole for just a moment and remind our viewers the dossier was initially funded by a conservative outlet. by the washington free beacon during the primaries because they did not want donald trump to get the nomination. it was to help other republicans. so this was first funded by conservatives. republicans did not get on board with donald trump until well after he got the nomination. and it was a bumpy road up until now. what has been confirmed -- excuse me. my throat is tickling. confirmed in the dossier is that carter page has met with representatives of the russian government. he met with representatives of the oil giant that is a government-run essentially oil company. also confirmed that russia targeted educated youth and swing state voters in cyberattacks in 2016. another portion of the dossier

that's been confirmed. also donald trump had ties to azerbaijan. this is according to all the reporting throughout. what the ic has been able to confirm. so the dossier, ari, is not just something as republicans have tried to paint it as something wholly unconfirms, unsubstantiated and just nothing but salacious. there are salacious aspects to the dossier. >> certainly. >> but again, those have not been proven to be false. at least as of now. >> right. >> they just haven't to be true at least as of now. >> and to extend your line of logic, what we are reporting on here, the entire memo is not about someone going to jail. it's not about someone being detained. it is about whether the government followed the right procedure to gather more information. that's how the surveillance process works. and again, because we're down in and deep, i'll say the fourth amendment doesn't give you a right not to be wiretapped. the fourth amendment gives you a right to only be wiretapped through reasonable suspicion in a court oversight process.

that's the process that both parties, by the way, passed in federal law n that's the process that appears to be followed here. the larger hypothetical inside this new memo is the argument that, well, maybe, maybe if the process went differently, carter page would not have ultmetly been surveilled. it's a hypothetical. and the other point, following this where the facts go, they make an allegation here. i don't qknow whether it's true but they allege andy mccabe made a similar hypothetical that he agreed with the republican theory that, quote, no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the court without the steele dossier information. is that true or not? we'll continue to work to report that out. but that strikes me as a big hypothetical and my knowledge of andy is he doesn't like to speak in hypotheticals because what that sentence really means is, if a judge knew more, they would have said no. 98% of the fisa warrants get approved.

i'm not sure andy would have ever said this would have been a no. >> matt, come join us in this rabbit hole for a moment. if andy mccabe did say that, would that mean that this fisa warrant -- say he did. would that mean that this fisa warrant was obtained improperly? >> like andy mccabe, i don't like engaging in hypotheticals. so i want to give one caveat first which is, we don't know the context in which andy mccabe answered that question. we've seen a very one-sided view. it could be the fact that that is a completely misleading account of what he said. and i hope that we'll find out the entire context at some point. but if it did, one of the things -- obviously what they're trying to argue is this was the primary source of information to support that fisa warrant being approved. we don't know that that's true. we don't know the strength of

the other sources of information, if any, that they used in this fisa application. although we do know there were some based on previous reporting. and fundamentally because we don't yet know -- they ask you to accept a premise here that because the dossier was funded by the clinton campaign, although not initially funded by the clinton campaign, it didn't in any way be used in this fisa application. and that is simply not true. the fbi gathers information from all sorts of people when opening investigations when pursuing investigations. many of those sources bring biases to bear. many of those sources have access to grind. it doesn't matter for the fbi's purpose. they have to take that into account when assessing their credibility. what matters is that the information is true. in this case, they assess the information at least had -- there was reason enough to believe it was true that gave them probable cause to apply for this warrant. that is fundamentally where the

republicans' logical argument in this memo, which, of course, is misleading and leaves out a lot of information. but even if you take their information at face value, that's where the logic breaks down in their argument. >> ned, it's believed the fbi also used peter schweitzer's book "clinton cash" in part to investigate the clintons. we don't have that confirmed but that's also out there. wouldn't that also be a biassed source? >> that's exactly right. but matt's point is the big one here. from my experience at the cia, from working closely with the fbi over the years, i can say categorically that there is not a single source within our intelligence or law enforcement community that is not in some ways biased. it's not that you try to wave a magic wand and to remove an individual's biases. you account for them. you vet a source. compare his or her information to what you already know. and this nunes memo does something very important. it calls christopher steele a

longtime, longstanding source of the fbi. the fbi does not have longstanding sources who routinely lie to them, who routinely pe lly peddle false information. that answers the questions about the biases. there's a bigger issue here. and i don't know if groundhog day is appropriate to exchange gifts but democrats should be showering gifts on devin nunes for this memo because it disproves one of the key talking points. namely that the steele dossier was the predicate to launch the investigation into donald trump in the first place. we know per the testimony of the former fbi director that that investigation was launched in july. it was not until october according to the nunes memo that the fbi for the first time sought fisa coverage on carter page. so, clearly, i think we can account for the fact that the steele dossier may have some -- steele himself may have biases.

but i think, clearly, the fbi has also taken that into account. and we can also be sure that any fisa application for carter page did not solely rely on one piece of information and most certainly did not rely solely upon the steele dossier. >> that's a very good point. and let's bring up, if we have, these graphics. the very first paragraph in the first page of the memo says october 21st, 2016, doj and fisa saute probable cause order electronicing surveillance electronics on carter page from the fisa court. october 21st, months after the intelligence community has said that they started this investigation. and as ned was just saying, it confirms in the fourth page of this memo that the papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an fbi counterintelligence investigation in late july 2016 by fbi agent peter strok.

so the gop has been saying the steele dossier can't underline any of this but the steele dossier was not what started this, according to this memo. bobby, i want to get your take. what do you make of all of this? >> well, you know, in addition to being an agent for 27 years, i'm also an attorney. and i was really interested in seeing what this memo was, what it looks like. quite frankly, early in my career, i did a lot of title 3 applications, wiretap applications. one of the always routine things when we got them to trial was a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence of the wiretap. and they would challenge a wiretap affidavit all the time. we were always successful. this four-page or five-page memo reads very much to me like a motion to suppress wiretap evidence. and we were always successful because you always did verify and corroborate a lot of the information. you worked with many different sources and conducted surveillance and did all your

due diligence before you went in to obtain a wiretap because one of the things is it's a very intrusive method. and one of the things you have to show is you exhausteded all other investigative avenues to get the evidence you need to get, and you can only get it through a wiretap. this very much reads like a motion to suppress to me as an attorney and an agent who has been involved in viwiretaps. i don't think there's anything new here. i don't think the fbi director should engage in a public debate over whether these conclusions are right or not. he should let that happen in the court of public opinion. it should just go away. we have constitutional protections for people like carter page or anybody else that's arrested and ultimately charged and brought into a court of law. they will be able to challenge this. they will be able to make the arguments that are made somewhat in this memo. they will be able to make those arguments through their counsel in open court. i just don't see the purpose of this memo at this point in time. >> bobby is making an important larger point. you don't spend a lot of time

thinking about fourth amendment search and seizure law, and why would you, even if -- >> right. even if you want to say for the sake of argument that the memo's argument is right and they have not released anything like the kind of supporting evidence or adversarial proceeding we'd normally have. even if right, the result of that would be that any of the information gleaned in the wiretap could not be used in open court. that's it. that's all you get. they're not alleging a crime or alleging the memo a federal felony. they're not alleging misconduct, at least in the words they use. so if they were right, what it means is what they got from tapping page couldn't be used. no biggie. >> what would that mean for the mueller investigation if they couldn't use any of that information? >> little to nothing. >> little to nothing? i mean what else can you say about this memo? republicans have been hyping it in alarmist terms now for over a week. there's the hashtag out there

#release the memo which is reported has been fueled by russian bots. let's get back to the bigger picture. the biggest picture here. and, matt, and that is the russians meddled in the 2016 election and very little has been done to stop that. what is happening in congress right now to address that? is everything just focused on these nitty gre-gritty details? who said what? who used this information to get this, that or the snrths what is happening with the bigger picture? how are we making sure that russia is not doing the same thing for 2018? >> nothing is really happening. obviously, congress passed over the president's initial objection. passed sanctions to try to punish russia and deter them from doing this again. the president has declined to implement some of those sanctions in a fully aggressive way. but congress has largely deferred to the executive branch

here and the executive branch led by donald trump has declined to do anything. you've seen that come out in multiple cabinet appearances on capitol hill and testimony where people like the attorney general have asked, well, have been asked, what are you doing to deter russian intelligence again? and jeff sessions' answer was basically nothing. they're not doing anything about it. they have basically left this door open. i think you have to question why. i think one very real possibility is that the president of the united states, who welcomed the russian interference in the middle of the 2016 campaign. he wasn't ambivalent about it or hostile to it. he welcomed it. you wonder whether he welcomes that interference again. that would also help explain why he constantly tries to shut down and obstruct not just the mueller investigation but all of the hill investigations which he continues to call a witch hunt. >> i want to know where marco rubio is because he warned late last year, if not -- or late during the campaign or election or even early last year, i can't

remember exactly when. but marco rubio warned the tables can be turned. so if the russians help you in one election, maybe they'll help the other team on the next election. bobby, jump in. >> if i could. just one thing. last august, the department of defense elevated the cybercommand to a combatant command element within the structure of the defense department. that's a significant move in the cyberworld and cybersecurity world to now have our fighti ii forces at the pentagon elevated to that level. i've spoken with and visited some of my counterparts in the cyberworld at department of homeland security last october. and there are thicngs happening within the justice department and executive branch and especially at the defense department and -- but also at homeland security. there are programs being implemented. there is things happening. it might not be so public. the biggest public thing happened last august when the pentagon elevated the cybercommand to be an equal

combatant command and that's not -- that shouldn't be minimized. that is a pretty big step. >> are we addressing what's going on in social media? russian bots are still over social media. fake news is being pushed out there. you have them fueling this hash tag #release the memo. they are still trying to sow division. that was a big part of what people are complaining about and worried about. i don't see any change in that for 2018. >> that's a huge struggle about how much the government can curtail on the internet. how much we can step in and say, you know, be the internet police and say you can't do this or that. we can try to weed that out. i'm not saying we're where we should be. you know, to combat this problem. but i'm saying there are small steps being taken, probably much more needs to be done. the pentagon released it last august and some elements of homeland security are working on it. so the public should understand that there are agents out there that are kind of working on it.

we need more help from congress to get these things stood up. but there are things moving in the right direction. >> bobby, you said christopher wray should not make a big scene of this any longer because you think it's turned out to be quite a dud. christopher wray is the man put into that position by donald trump. this is a very public break between donald trump and his own fbi director. is this something that in your experience is going to rattle the fbi? what more, if anything, should be done or said? what reaction should there be? >> at the all. i served under director freeh for ten years. he did not exactly have the most functional relationship with the white house. him and bill clinton were at each other's throats. if you read their respective memoirs you'd know there's no love lost between director freeh and president clinton. i've served under that where the director and the president were

not getting along. >> but was it public in this way? >> it wasn't so public. that's more of a problem for morale, but as far as the functionality and operationally, you know, we can get through this kind of thing. we've weathered this kind of storm before. i wish it wasn't happening and it shouldn't be happening but it is happening and the men and women of the fbi will weather this storm. you just don't want to get drawn into the fight publicly because i don't think there's much of an up side to doing that. >> bobby, matt, ned, ari. ari is gone already, though. my all-star gentlemen, thank you guys very much. >> thank you. more on this. we'll be right back. oh, you brought butch. yeah! (butch growls at man) he's looking at me right now, isn't he? yup. (butch barks at man) butch is like an old soul that just hates my guts. (laughs) (vo) you can never have too many faithful companions.

that's why i got a subaru crosstrek. love is out there. find it in a subaru crosstrek. so allstate is giving us money back on our bill. well, that seems fair. we didn't use it. wish we got money back on gym memberships. get money back hilarious. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it.

wiback like it could used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in.

for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena democrats are reacting to the release of the nunes memo. mark warner said the release of this memo by house intel republicans and the white house over the objections of the fbi and the doj is reckless and demonstrates an astonishing disregard for the truth. unlike almost every house member who voted in favor of this memo's release, i have actually read the underlying documents on which the memo was based. they simply do not support its conclusions. on the other side, house speaker paul ryan just issued his own statement. unlike most judicial providings, the fisa system depends not on an adversarial process but on the government providing a complete presentation of the facts and circumstances under lying warrant applications. it is clear from this memo that

did not happen in this case and as a consequence, americans' civil liberties may have been violated. i also have the serious concerns with using political documents to make law enforcement and counterintelligence decisions. amid all the political rancor, we must be able to work together to ensure the fisa system works as intended and americans' rights are properly safeguarded. with me now, a.b. stoddard for real clear politics. a female, welcome. great. nick comfosore and kurt bardell, a columnist for "usa today," huff post and nbc's think. paul ryan is saying that the underlying decisions, the underlying documents make this very clear that this is a political issue. mark warner says he's seen the underlying documents and it's very clear it's not a political

issue. what we're not seeing and i guess what i wonder if this ryan statement is a bit misleading. what we're not seeing are the underlying documents. we're seeing a four-page memo which reads much more like a press release than anything else. >> it's like watching two people play poker and you can't see their hands but you can see the cards on the table. we don't know what the underlying facts or underlying intelligence was and we're not going to see it. what we have left -- >> it's classified. >> so we shouldn't see it. instead this debate between partisans on both sides. saying this is accurate. no, it's not accurate. we're never going to know. and the point is this because of political document. if you look at the things it mentioned. it goes through a list of doj officials, tries to pull in people that the president has problems with being at doj. tries to connect them to the issuance of this warrant. that's what this is about. this whole process was tainted and it's so bad that there now

has to be some kind of accountability at justice. >> a.b., in looking at whether this is partisan or not partisan, let's look at how it came to be. the republicans voted along party lines to release this memo over the objections of their democratic counterparts. devin nunes did not share it with senator burr of the senate intel committee which is unusual considering they both might have a tested interest in this. the republicans voted against the democrats releasing their own memo. and then when it was distributed after it was unclassified by the president, selects went first to friendly media outlets. first to places like fox news before they went to everybody else. >> yeah, i mean, i think in the court of public opinion, that kind of release shows that it has been a partisan effort. and i'm afraid we've been told

there is reporting that aides, advisers around the president admit this is a way for him to discredit any findings in the mueller investigation and to confuse, create a bunch of cloud storms over these institutions so their findings will always be suspect. this memo, katy, what you were talking about, the court of public opinion, if you were coming, drooling and looking for meat from this memo, you will take away the fact that assistant deputy attorney general at the time bruce orr admitted that christopher steele had a strong bias against the election of donald trump, was trying to stop it. that bruce orr's wife worked at fusion gps and this was not revealed to the fisa court. and you can hold on tight to those to show some type of illustration of bias in the process. but they are alleging the -- they are questioning the legitimacy and legality of this

fisa process and even house speaker ryan uses the word may and makes it conditional. the civil liberties may have been violated. no one is saying this is an absolute direct abuse of power and they have not shown evidence because we don't have the underlying fisa application. and i'm desperate to hear from the fisa judges about this. that the actual entire process application was based solely on this steele dossier. i hope everyone at home this weekend will read up on how you get a warrant through the fisa application process. it is absolutely riddled with traps and backstops. it is incredibly rigorous and you'd have to conspire as a large group of people to try to break the law in this process. >> let's talk about devin nunes. devin nunes was somebody who recused himself from the russia investigation in house intel because of the debacle over what happened when he was trying to prove donald trump correct about wiretapping where he said he had information that wiretapping was

done improperly but that information ended up coming directly from the white house. he recused himself. how can he do this if he's already recused himself from the russia investigation. >> well, clearly, he didn't recuse himself and clearly he's taking his marching orders from the white house. during the meeting in which the republicans voted to release this memo, he was asked by one of his colleagues, have you or your staff been in contact with the white house. have they been a part of this and he wouldn't answer the question which tells you everything we need to know about this memo, its origins and intent and how political this is. the fact he wouldn't answer that he's been getting his marching orders from the white house. his staff has been in contact with the white house. i worked on a congressional oversight committee that dealt with depositions and subpoenas and e-mails. no way a staff would put together this kind of report without the explicit knowledge and direction of the chairman and without having their orders come from the white house. >> what role does paul ryan have in this, nick? >> he's trying to create a middle ground here.

i think the entire party now in congress is pretty vested in trying to blunt the impact of whatever the mueller probe comes up with. i think if there were any red lines about firing mueller, no way. it's done. so i think the speaker -- look. he has blessed the idea. he's said in public he thinks there are problems at the fbi. there are problems at justice that the fbi has been politicized. this memo is not good evidence of that, but he has bought into that whole idea which i think there is limited evidence for and a lot of evidence against. and he has played a part in justifying this idea that the fbi should be a target of ridicule probation from republicans. >> a.b., what do you think of that? the republican party, as i remember it, orearly on in the campaign was not happy about donald trump. did not want him to be their nominee. fusion gps was initially hired by the washington free beacon in order to find damaging op against donald trump to help

other republican candidates like marco rubio and it wasn't until donald trump clinched the nomination essentially that the free beacon told fusion gps to back off. they were then hired by the dnc which then hired christopher steele. but the republicans were not supportive. they were not embracing donald trump. they didn't embrace him even up until the election after that "access hollywood" tape when a number of republicans jumped ship. early on in this administration you had republicans really pushing back against this white house. lindsey graham was certainly very loud about it. there was, as nick said, a real red line in the mueller investigation. if he tried to move to fire robert mueller, they would not let that stand. that would be the end of his presidency. i believe a number of republican lawmakers said. this has gone in quite a different direction. the goal posts do seem to be moved. >> it's really been fascinating to listen to the trajectory of

what they've said from the summer through now. back in june when this first arose, this question of whether or not president trump might fire bob mueller. now we learn from "the new york times" reporting two weeks ag that he was considering it at the time but was talked out of it. i talked to several republicans, one a senior republican senator who says that would be impeachable. another senior house republican, very close to ryan who said my oath is only to the constitution. times have changed. and they want to avoid this topic as much as they can. i saw a statement from senator orrin hatch today saying it doesn't really implicate rosenstein but he may have to be fired if he's too controversial in this process. >> that's what's going on. there is a certain tar and feathering happening of rod rosenstein right now where his name just keeps getting repeated over and over. lee zelden said the other day this memo would make it clear

there need to be changes in leadership at the top of the doj and the fbi. >> and that's what's going to be so interesting in the days to come. we're going to hear more. and when we hear either more about the fisa application itself, more statements from people at doj and fbi and around them, more statements from the speaker who as nick points out is trying to straddle a middle ground. he said i don't want this to be commingled. so because this is actually designed to conflate opinion, the memo with the mueller investigation, paul ryan, if he learns that the public doesn't find so much in this memo that fisa judge statements in the days to come actually conflict with the conclusion of this memo, it's going to be very tough hot spot for people like paul ryan who is trying to hold a middle ground to be in. >> paul ryan, again, taking a

bit of a shellacking for this. "the washington post" editorial board is saying this about ryan today. mr. ryan bears full responsibility for the deterioration of congressional oversight of saying this about ryan today. mr. ryan bears full responsibility for the deterioration of congressional oversight of intelligence operations. you would this mr. nunes's committee would be alarmed by this threat to american democracy. instead mr. nunes with mr. ryan's aid and comfort is trying to impede on investigation into these issues. it's sad to see the speaker allowing the house to be tarnished in this way. do you think this can be construed as an effort not by devin nunes to protect the president but by paul ryan looking to if he can prosecute and therefore the gop agenda? >> i think they're all in it together. there was a time where believe it or not republican leadership in congress would try to rein in icen.

they would yell at us and tell us to back off, take it slow. that's when barack obama was in the oval office. now that trump's there and they see their congressional majority is in peril, they're completely changing the standards they set when obama was in office to move goal post and allow nunes to run rough shot. they're letting them direct the direction of the intelligence committee and all the oversight committee. it's a completely different change how they're approaching this. and ryan is complicit in this. there's no line of separation between nunes and paul ryan. they're one and the same because i don't see republicans going out there saying this is an abuse of power, this is an abuse of the intelligence committee, this is unprecedented what they did using an obscure role that hasn't been used before to release classified information.

if any democrat tried to do this they would be how long at the moon, calling for abuse of power, and yet they're saturday night right now. >> let's bring in reporter ken delaney. i hear you have new reporting. >> four separate fisa court judges signs off on first, the application and then the renewals. didn't get all the information, four separate judges had a chance to ask questions. we know this is a rigorous process. and the fbi is supposed to document every fact that it brings before the court for the great hurdle of getting surveillance on an american. >> what does this mean for the memo? >> look, the democrats are saying that -- the memo is a series of allegations that the fisa court was misled and they're saying it's false. there should be a forum where this can be aired where people

can go under oath and find out what this testimony means. nines is making serious charges here that courts were not given the full information about where this information came from. >> you noted earlier the timing that's laid out in this memo. they note that carter page wasn't -- the fisa warrant wasn't approved until november. >> that's right. the whole republican theory of this is that this is the fruit of the poisonous tree. if carter page finds out this is corrupt, then investigation is invalid. what is now the mueller investigation began in july 2016, and the feds didn't start looking at carter page page until october 2016. >> does this give donald trump what he needs to fire rod rosenstein? >> i mean, it shouldn't in any rational universe. >> do we live in a rational universe? >> look, you can look at this

memo and see all the ways to claw him into this process. he signed off on these fisa applications. he worked closely with bruce the dodge official whose wife worked for fusion. you can see dragging him into this saying he's tainted by it. doing a basic read on this, if the president thinks this is so shocking to get rid of the guy, i think there are a few people who understand this who would agree with him. >> democrats want to release their own memo. the republicans have blocked them. the fbi was really against this coming out. correct me if i'm wrong, because i'm not ant expert, i don't see sources revealed here. >> it's hard for us to know what may be sensitive. i'm told there was a push to redact some of this stuff and they were not successful. >> the only thing redacted is the top secret at the top of the page.

so the democrats want to push back, the fbi wasn't happy about it. is the fbi going to end up coming out and saying something? we had a former fbi agent and lawyer say that christopher wray probably shouldn't. don't add fuel to the fire but what's the debate internally? >> with our understanding is this phi won't release something publicly. but there might be something internally, potentially a letter to the hill. there's certainly a lot of people who want to push back on this. >> nick, ken, ab, curt, thank you very much. much more ahead in the next hour. the 2:00 p.m. hour. we'll be right back. today we're bringing you america's number one shave at lower prices every day. putting money back in the pockets of millions of americans. as one of those workers, i'm proud to bring you gillette quality for less, because nobody can beat the men and women of gillette. gillette - the best a man can get.

this beneful grain free is so healthy... oh! farm-raised chicken! that's good chicken! hm!? here come the accents. blueberries and pumpkin. wow. and spinach! that was my favorite bite so far. (avo) beneful grain free. out with the grain, in with the farm-raised chicken. healthful. flavorful. beneful.

so a few years ago, me and my wife were actually saving for a house. but one day we were sitting there and we decided that, you know what? something needed to be done about what was going on in our inner-city. instead of buying a house, we decided to form this youth league. what is he doing wrong? he should shed the block. exactly. it's volunteer, we don't get a paycheck. it's one hundred percent from the heart. football shaped my life and i'm praying that it will shape these kids' lives as well. ♪ ♪

it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in the east. the much hyped gop memo is out. the memo released by house republican devin nunes and approved by president trump alleges abuse at the highest levels of the donnelly and fbi, that the steele dossier formed the essential portfolio fisa application targeting trump campaign aide carter page. and that the while fisa application rise on steele's past record of incredible reporting, it ignored or concealed his anti-trump bias. that memo, despite the gravest warning the fbi could give, despite republicans in the senate expressing their own grave concerns, was released in its unredacted form for the world to see. >> the white house has

declassified this information. >> the real danger is you're letting the public see one point of view, one slice of information that we know from reports from the fbi is extremely misleading. >> i think it's a disgrace what's going on in this country. i think it's a disgrace. the memo was sent to congress. congress will do whatever they're going to do. but i think it's a disgrace what's happening in our country. when you look at that and you see that and so many other things, what's going on, a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves. >> this is not normal politics. this is a hit job here. >> one paragraph worth noting, then director james comey signed three fisa applications in question on behalf of the fbi in deputy director andrew mccabe signed one. then acting dag and rod rosenstein each sign